On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 11:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At least this appears to work and is much faster, completing substring
> > operations like above in about 0.27 secs (that's about two orders of
> > magnitude improvement!)
> I find it really, really hard to believe that a crude reimplementation
> in plpgsql of the TOAST concept could beat the built-in implementation
> at all, let alone beat it by two orders of magnitude.
> Either there's something unrealistic about your testing of the
> dna_string function, or your original tests are not causing TOAST to be
> invoked in the expected way, or there's a bug we need to fix.  I'd
> really like to see some profiling of the poor-performing
> external-storage case, so we can figure out what's going on.
I was really hoping for a "Good job and glad to hear it" from you :-)

I don't think there is anything unrealistic about my function or its
testing, as it is very much along the lines of the types of things we do
now.  I will really try to do some profiling this week to help figure
out what is going on.


Scott Cain, Ph. D.                                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/)                     216-392-3087
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to